Item 12: Adoption of the report of the Commission on its sixty-seventh session

CND Chair (Ghana): Excellencies, distinguished representatives, ladies and gentlemen. Good afternoon. We shall now turn our attention to item 12, adoption of the report of the Commission on its 67th session. We will proceed with the adoption of the draft resolutions. Before doing so, I would like to thank Ambassador Barbara Zvokelj of Slovenia for having supported me by chairing the Committee of the Whole. Ambassador, you have the floor.

CoW Chair (Slovenia): We have concluded the consideration of proposals in the Committee of the Whole, and I would like to thank delegations for it very much. I would like to thank for flexibility, for cooperation, for hard work, for long hours – I know that informals have been going on until late in the night. I am very happy to report that L3 and L4 have found consensus in the Committee of the Whole. At the same time, the CoW has not been able to find consensus on all paragraphs within resolutions L2 and L5. Again, at the end, I would like thank everyone especially the sponsors, member states and Secretariat for their help. Thank you very much.

Chair: I thank Ambassador Barbara for her work in CoW. I believe, just as Ambassador Barbara, would have preferred that we had consensus on all the resolutions. As I have said repeatedly, it is our common and shared responsibility and we cannot fail humanity in dealing with issues of this nature. I admire her resilience, her patience and the hard efforts in trying to get us to consensus on all four resolutions. But being as it may, we will try once again to see how best we can make progress in our work.

Before we proceed with the adoption of resolutions, I would request delegations, if there are comments related to editorial or translation matters, to abstain from taking the floor and to provide those comments in writing directly to the Secretariat. The same would apply when we come to adopting the final report. I would also like to crave your indulgence not to continue negotiations of texts in the plenary by opening up texts.

Member states who wish to co-sponsor resolutions can still do so via the eDelegate platform, until Monday 25th March 2024. In addition, member states can raise their country plate during the adoption of resolutions. May I also kindly ask delegations to be patient and only raise their flags when asked to do so. I would also like to recall that the representative of the Financial Resources Management Services of UNODC has explained in the pre-session consultations that there will only be statements of financial implications issued if there are implications on the regular budget. As the resolutions contained in documents L2 to L5 are solely subject to the availability of extrabudgetary resources, no oral statements of financial implications are needed and their adoption would not entail any additional budgetary implications on the regular budget.

According to past practice, we will first take up those resolutions that enjoy consensus in the CoW.

Secretary: As already referred to by the Chair of the CoW, the Commission has for its consideration and adoption a total of four draft proposals. There is the draft resolution contained in document L3rev2 and the draft resolution contained in document L4rev2, that were approved by the Committee of the Whole that met from Monday 18th March until today, the 22nd March. And then there is the unedited revised version of document L2rev1 and the unedited revised version of L5rev2, that were considered by the Committee of the Whole but have not been approved by the Committee.

The first resolution is contained in document L3rev2 and has the title “Promoting recovery and related support services for people with drug use disorder”. It has been sponsored by Chile and the following countries: Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Norway, as well as Australia, Belgium, Colombia, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, France, Greece, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand and the UK.

Chair: Can the Commission adopt resolution L3rev2? I see no objection, it is so decided.

[Adopted, to applause]

Is there any delegation wishing to make a statement? [None]

Are there delegations that wish to cosponsor the resolution, and who have not been read out previously? [Delegates raise their flags]

Secretary: Belgium on behalf of the EU, Brazil, Canada, Finland, United States, Uruguay, Albania, Switzerland, Costa Rica, and Ecuador.

Chair: Thank you Madame Secretary. Now let’s turn to L4.

Secretary: The next proposal is contained in document L4rev2, and has the title “Promoting awareness raising education training and data collection as part of a comprehensive approach to ensuring access to, and availability of, controlled substances for medical and scientific purposes including for the treatment of children and ensuring their rational use”. It is sponsored by Belgium on behalf of the EU and Cote D’Ivoire, as well as Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Norway, and Andorra, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Morocco, Singapore, Thailand and the UK.

Chair: Can the Commission adopt the resolution L4rev2? I see no objection. It is so decided.

[Adopted, to applause]

Is there any delegations wishing to take the floor?

Belgium: Thank you Chair. Allow me at the outset to congratulate also Chile on the adoption of their resolution. Express our heartfelt gratitude to the initial cosponsors of the resolution for their collaboration. We believe that inter-regional cooperation on the subject is crucial, to learn from each other but also to listen to each other if we want to grasp the challenges everyone faces. I would also like to extend my gratitude to UNODC for their support. Allow me also to thank all the delegations in this room for their constructive engagement and very creative thinking to find compromises all week. With this resolution we have adopted today, we have taken another step towards ensuring equitable access to controlled medicines for all. Promoting data collection, education, training and awareness raising are key elements to help us in this endeavour. We also have added a focus on children, because when it comes to ensuring access to controlled medicines for children we face unique challenges.

But let us be clear that this resolution is only one step. We must translate our words into tangible initiatives that make a difference in people’s lives. We must work tirelessly to remove all barriers to the access to, and the availability of, controlled substances for medical and scientific purposes, whether they relate to affordability, capacity building or estimates, and whether there are logistical or regulatory. The list of barriers is long, but it is feasible to address them and to work together to minimize them. Let us re-double our efforts to build a world where access to controlled medicines is not a privilege reserved for the few, but a right that is guaranteed to all, and to make sure that no patient is left behind.

And, last but not least, I would also like to say a big thank you to my colleague Florinda and to the entire Belgian delegation of experts to the CND, whose dedication brought us to the adoption today by consensus. Thank you.

Cote d’Ivoire: I will strive to be brief. I would just like to recall that the resolution L4rev1 has been adopted. This resolution responds to the imbalances that we note when it comes to availability and access for all, including children, to controlled substances for medical and scientific purposes, the promotion of human rights, notably the right to health and to healthcare. Cote d’Ivoire, like other developing countries, is concerned about difficulties related to access and availability and acquisition of these medications at low cost. Following the adoption of this important resolution, I would like to express my thanks and congratulations to all delegations that showed a spirit of compromise during the negotiations and also for their support for this text which, in its substance and its form, has taken on board the concerns that were raised so as to come to a consensus in accordance with the Vienna spirit – the consensus that we see today. Thank you.

Chair: Are there delegations that wish to cosponsor the resolution, and who have not been read out previously? [Delegates raise their flags]

Secretary: Switzerland, Nigeria, Albania, Canada, United States and Zimbabwe.

Chair: Now that we have adopted two of the resolutions by consensus, we will turn our attention to the [CND] report. Before I give the floor to the rapporteur to introduce the draft report, I’d like to recall that, regarding the format of the report for the 67th session, the Commission in its Decision 55/1 decided to make efforts to reduce the length of its annual report – bearing in mind the need for such reports to include resolutions and decisions adopted or transmitted by the Commission as well as a brief summary of its deliberations under each agenda item, focusing in particular on policy findings and conclusions reached. In addition this year, we also have the part of the high-level segment including the general debate and the co-chair’s summaries of the salient points raised during the roundtables of the high-level segment. I would also like to inform you that the report on agenda items 10 and 11, which we discussed yesterday, will be prepared by the Secretariat after the session in close coordination with myself and the rapporteur. I now give the floor to Colombia, the rapporteur of this Commission to introduce the draft report.

Rapporteur (Colombia): I have the pleasure to introduce the draft report for the 67th session, which is contained in eight documents: the document with the title E/CN/7/2024/L1 and the relevant documents ad1 to ad7. The document ad1 covers the high-level segment: the opening, the general debate, the multi-stakeholder interactive roundtables, the commitment to action, and the approval of the high-level declaration on the 2024 midterm review following up to the Ministerial Declaration of 2019. Please bear in mind that the summaries of the roundtables are not subject to negotiation. The document ad2 covers strategic, management, budgetary and administrative questions. The document ad3 covers agenda item 5, entitled implementation of the international drug control treaties. The document ad4 contains agenda item 6, entitled follow-up to the implementation of all commitments to address the world drug problem. The document ad5 contains the agenda item on interagency cooperation and coordination of efforts. The document ad6 contains agenda item 8, recommendations of the subsidiary bodies of the Commission. The document ad7 contains agenda item 9, contributions by the Commission to the work of ECOSOC in line with General Assembly resolutions 75/290A and 75/290B including follow-up to, and review and implementation, of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This report is only available in English, and does not cover agenda item 11 nor agenda item 12. The reports of these agenda items will be produced following the conclusion of this session. Chair, I would like to suggest that the Commission begins now the approval of the report.

USA: When will we address, before the adoption of the report, the two remaining resolutions that were transmitted from the CoW.

Chair: We will go through the report section-by-section, and will leave the collective adoption until a later stage. Then we can go to the two remaining resolutions, as we want to use time efficiently.

Colombia: In the report, we wish to propose an addition. In the footnote where it cites countries that align themselves with the statement of Colombia, we would like one more country to be added – Jamaica. Thank you.

Chair: I want us to focus attention on document E/CN/7/2024/L.1. Are there any comments? I see none – it is so decided.

Next is E/CN/7/2024/L.1/ad1 – any comments?

China: We would suggest, in paragraphs 24 and 33, to add the salient point of my delegation’s statement in the roundtables. In paragraph 24 we suggest to modify that some speakers stressed the need to further reduce drug demand, especially in those countries with huge drug consumption markets, while reducing drug supply and minimising drug-related harms, as highlighted by a number of speakers. In paragraph 33, we suggest to change the last half-sentence to ‘expressed concerns on the violation of the conventions through the legalisation of controlled substances for non-medical use’.

Chair: We made it clear that the co-chair’s summaries are not subject to negotiation. E/CN/7/2024/L.1/ad.1 can be adopted now – it is so decided.

Next is E/CN/7/2024/L.1/ad.2, are there any comments? I see none – it is so decided-

Next is E/CN/7/2024/L.1/ad.3, are there any comments? I see none – it is so decided.

Next is E/CN/7/2024/L.1/ad.4, are there any comments? I see none – it is so decided.

Next is E/CN/7/2024/L.1/ad.5, are there any comments?

Russia: The Russian Federation took the floor during this segment of the session and, in order to have a balanced reflection of the discussion, in paragraph 11 we would like to insert: ‘at the same time, some speakers expressed concern at the adoption by some UN bodies, including OHCHR, of recommendations that are at odds with the three drug control conventions and noted their counter-productive nature for international anti-narcotics cooperation’.

Chair: Thank you for the observation, which will be reflected in the report. Can we adopt as orally amended? It is so decided.

Next is E/CND/7/2024/L.1/ad.6, are there any comments? I see none – it is so decided.

Next is E/CND/7/2024/L.1/ad.7, are there any comments? I see none – it is so decided.

We continue with the adoption of the report as a whole later. Now, I invite the Commission to take action on those resolutions that have not enjoyed consensus in the CoW, in numerical order. I call on the Secretary to introduce resolution L2.

Secretary: The proposal is an unedited revised version of document L2rev1, with the title “Celebrating the 10th anniversary of the UN Guiding Principles on Alternative Development, effective interpretation and the way forward”. Sponsored by Germany, Peru and Thailand, as well as Belgium, Brazil, China, Colombia, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, France, Guatemala, Honduras, Italy, Malaysia, Malta, Netherlands, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

Chair: I would like once again reiterate my wish that the plenary should not be turned into a platform for re-negotiations of texts. I now ask the Commission if we can adopt this resolution.

Thailand: I wish to present to the Commission the draft resolution L2rev1 unedited revised. Besides over six hours spent in the Committee of the Whole, our delegation has conducted over 24 hours of informal consultations in probably the most open and transparent matter that we could. All the floor requests were yielded and all the proposals were discussed. Yet, despite the flexibilities and concessions shown by many – and I said many – delegations, we were still unable to resolve a couple of major issues which a delegation uses as a condition to accept many new paragraphs. Given that we have really come such a long, long way, we feel that a withdrawal of the only draft resolution that addresses the issue of supply reduction from consideration of this Commission would send a wrong signal to the international community. So in order to preserve the integrity of many agreed languages, so they can be kept as agreed languages and not ones which were rejected by the Commission, we proposed that some of the contentious paragraphs which did not enjoy the broad consensus have been removed. I wish to maintain a strong call upon all members of the Commission to consider this draft resolution tabled in front of you in a positive light, and have it adopted by consensus. And, as you mentioned Mr Chair that you wish that this plenary should not be used as a platform for re-negotiation of the text, I wish to request a closure of debate on the consideration of this draft resolution and go straight to its adoption, by Rule 50.

[Applause]

Chair: I would like to ask Thailand whether they are making a motion to close the debate?

Thailand: Thank you. I would like to invoke rule 50, closure of the debate.

Chair: Thank you Thailand. The representative of Thailand has moved, within the terms of Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedures of the Functional Commissions of ECOSOC – the closure of debate of resolution of L2rev1.

Rule 50 read as follows: “A representative may at any time move the closure of the debate on the item under discussion, whether or not any other representative has signified his wish to speak. Permission to speak on the motion shall be accorded only to two representatives opposing the closure, after which the motion shall be put to the vote immediately.”

This would mean that, if the motion is successful, the Commission will proceed immediately to consider any proposal still before it, i.e. resolution L2rev1. I give the floor to Iran within the remit of Rule 50.

Iran: I understand the remit of Rule 50. We note your strategic diplomacy, and we know there is a procedure on how we should interact. On the closure of debate, we are objecting to the closure of debate. I hope we can put the closure of debate to a vote and, thereafter, proceed accordingly about the resolution itself.

Chair: Are there any other delegations wanting to take the floor within the purview of Rule 50? I see none, so we will proceed with a vote. Let me remind the Commission that, in accordance with Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedures of the Functional Commissions of ECOSOC, a simple majority of the Commission members present and voting is required. The Commission will now proceed to vote on the motion to close the debate on L2rev1.

I now call only on the members of the Commission in favour of the motion to close the debate to raise their country sign and keep it raised until their country name is called out.

Secretary: Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, France, Finland, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, UK, United States, Uruguay and Zimbabwe.

Chair: I now call on only members of the Commission not in favour of the motion to close the debate to raise their sign.

Secretary: Iran

Chair: I now request only members of the Commission abstaining to raise their sign.

Secretary: Algeria, Russia, Kenya, Indonesia and Tanzania. [Japan asked to clarify their vote, which is in support of the motion].

Chair:  There is a total of 44 votes in favour, one vote against, and five abstentions. This means that we will immediately vote on L2rev1. Thailand, do you have a point of order?

Thailand: Thank you Mr Chair, you just said that we proceed to vote. But nobody has requested for a vote yet I think. So I propose that we adopt the document by consensus.

Iran: Legally speaking, things should not be mixed up. We are now proceeding to the substance of the resolution. Iran requests for a vote on the whole resolution.

Chair: We will now proceed with the voting on L2rev1. I will propose that any statements made by members of the Commission in explanation of their vote, as well as any general statements, will be made after voting. In accordance with Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedures of the Functional Commissions of ECOSOC, no representative may interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual process of voting. Let me remind the Commission that, in accordance with Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedures of the Functional Commissions of ECOSOC, a simple majority of the Commission members present and voting is required.

I now call on the members of the Commission in favour of the adoption of the proposal contained in L2rev1 [on alternative development] to raise their country signs and keep them raised until their country name is called out.

Secretary: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, France, Finland, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, UK, United States, Uruguay and Zimbabwe.

Chair: I now call on only members of the Commission not in favour of the proposal by raising their name plates.

[None raised]

Chair: I now request members of the Commission abstaining to raise their name plates.

Secretary: Armenia, Iran and Tanzania.

Chair: There is a total of 45 votes in favour, no votes against, and three abstentions. Therefore, I declare that the Commission has decided to adopt L2rev1. It is so decided.

[Absent: —6 (out of 53) Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Guatemala, Kenya, Nigeria, Tunisia.]

[Long applause]

Thailand: Thank you, Mr. Chair. On behalf of my delegation, I wish to express our delight at the adoption of this important resolution, the only one on supply reduction tabled at the CND this year. Yet at the same time, we express our sadness that this is the first ever CND resolution that has to be adopted by a vote. Last Wednesday, when this draft resolution was introduced at the pre–session consultation, my colleague was saying that he was expecting a bumpy road ahead, but I did not know that it would be a rollercoaster ride! I wish to take this opportunity to thank, first and foremost, our original co-sponsors, Germany and Peru, for sticking together all along from the very beginning of our long road and up to the end. We have demonstrated that, despite the differences in our drug policies, our strong commitment to promoting a drug control strategy that takes into account the well-being of our people is an unbreakable one. Thailand is delighted to hear the interest of Colombia to join our group, and look forward to discussion on the matter.

I also wish to thank all the additional co-sponsors for sending their strong message for support of our cause to improve the lives of those affected by, and at risk of, illicit drug-related activities. I further wish to thank the CoW Chair, the permanent representative of Slovenia, for her able guidance and instrumental roles in trying to help us reach the need that consensus – although we did not manage to get there in time. I also thank the Secretariat, the CMS and the BMS for their support, not only on the negotiation process but also for our side events and exhibition which help us relay an important message to delegates in this room – and I’m sure that all of you have tasted our tea and coffee!

Finally, I wish to express our sincere appreciation to all delegates who participate constructively in the discussion, negotiation of this draft resolution. I know many of them are not entirely happy with the outcome of the negotiation, but they demonstrate their willingness to let go of something that might be important to them, for the greater good of humanity, especially those in the developing world. Please rest assured that, although some of your comments have not been reflected in the final document, I have been listening to all of your concerns and our delegation will continue to take those into account when formulating our work and standing in next year’s discussion. I hope we do better next year, and i still believe in the Vienna spirit. Thank you, Mr Chair.

UK: Let me thank the distinguished delegation of Thailand for being so generous with both their time and the way in which they conducted these negotiations here in Vienna. They say the spirit of Vienna is not dead, and I believe that is clearly evident – both inside of the negotiation rooms, in the CoW and the informal discussions around this issue. The UK would like to ask a point of clarification: given that there were no votes against the motion, is the resolution passed by consensus? This is a question for the Secretariat. Thank you.

Chair: Member states have created a problem, and now they want to hang it on the Secretariat! I want to give them time to think and respond.

Brazil: I would like also to congratulate the delegation of Thailand for pushing forward this resolution, which both deepens and broadens our understanding and the concept itself of alternative development. Brazil are proud to be a co-sponsor. Mr Chair, we have also this same question so I think we’ll have to wait a little bit for the response. Thank you.

Canada: Canada greatly appreciates the efforts of sponsors to streamline this year’s resolution on alternative development, and to ensure a forward-looking text. Our vote in favour of this resolution reflects our support for the sponsors in their efforts, and the importance of commemorating the 10th anniversary of the UN Guiding Principles on Alternative Development. The final text reflects important additions from sponsors as well as other delegations on the evolution of alternative development over these past 10 years. We greatly regret that these efforts, and this balanced and focused text, were held back by unrelated topics and old debates. Canada remains committed to retaining a forward looking focus in our work in the Commission and, like the distinguished Ambassador of Thailand, we also retain hope in the spirit of consensus in Vienna. Thank you.

Iran: I hope that our colleagues in the Secretariat could respond, as we have already voted for that, [so] there was no consensus. If there was consensus, we would not vote. It is very clear. For whatever reason, we have opted for the voting, we have asked for the vote, that means it has not been consensus. It is a matter of regret that, despite all efforts from my delegation, the sponsors of this resolution choose a path of confrontation rather than cooperation in the spirit which would be needed in the CND. This is not compatible with the CND spirit nor the Vienna spirit. Iran, being the first country in the region on the frontier of the drug smuggling, now is imposed with unilateral, unjustified sanctions by one state. It was very clear, from the first instance, for what reasons that state try to throw out any ideal languages from the text so that they hide behind these developments. These obstacles, impediments, challenges exist in contravention of the UN Charter. We know that that state, in particular the United States, is very much addicted to recourse to the unjustified unilateral sanctions in contravention of the UN principles and international law.

Mr Chair, our proposal was an agreed text which unfortunately has not been regarded by the sponsors. It was agreed text from the previous resolutions [66/4]:

“Recognizing the fundamental role of effective international cooperation in preventing and combating drug-related crime, in particular through alternative development programmes, and to this end underlines the importance of addressing, tackling and effectively responding to international challenges and barriers, in particular measures, that hinder such cooperation, and which are not consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and obligations under international law, and in this regard urges States, consistent with their international obligations, to refrain from applying such measures.

This was the text from last year, and we did the upmost to bring that text into the resolution [this year]. But, however, it was a persistent objection to that agree text. It is very much a regret that CND has departed from the previous common practice. But, regardless of the emotional atmosphere that might have existed between some European countries, Iran favourably would continue its commitment with regard to the three conventions, as well as Iran being committed, apart from this, for the cause of the issue which is to counter drug trafficking in all its aspects. For that, we do not need some someone to appreciate us. Iran is a frontier and we will continue to do it.

Armenia: Armenia would like, first of all, to congratulate the delegations of Thailand, Germany and Peru for the adoption of the resolution. Armenia commends the hard work done and gives utmost importance of the alternative development and the relevant UN Guiding Principles. Taking into account that the substantial resolutions related to the policy of the sector within the framework of the Commission have never been put to a vote, Armenia voted in abstention to emphasize the importance of the preservation of the consensus with regards to the adoption of resolutions that are substantial to the policy and to the mandate of the Commission, which will ensure its universal international support and promote their comprehensive implementation.

Russia: The Russian delegation voted in support of this draft resolution. We believe that the resolution is good, but it could have been even better had the proposal by Iran been accepted, especially considering that the Iranian proposal was based on consensus language from last year. It is regrettable that this was not possible due to the objection of a number of countries.

Chair: Are there any more delegations that would like to co-sponsor the resolution?

Secretary: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belgium on behalf of the EU, Bolivia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Japan, Morocco, Norway, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, UK and United States.

Chair: Are there any more delegations that would like to take the floor?

Peru:  Obviously, the delegation from Peru would like to share its pleasure at the adoption of the resolution. The Ambassador from Thailand has already expressed our satisfaction at this. This experience will mean that we have to look ahead to ensure that we work with the spirit of Vienna. That’s a goal that we should aim to achieve, but in a responsible manner. We would like to request that recognition is given to the great work done by the Thai delegation, but we would in particular like to highlight the arduous work and we’ve borne witness to hours and hours of work from our distinguished colleague, and I think we should all give them a round of applause.

Chile: I would like to express thanks for the support for our resolution, and thank Belgium and Thailand. My delegation regrets that we had to vote on this resolution by Thailand for the first time in CND. I think we need to work on recovering the true Vienna spirit, and ensure that consensus doesn’t become a true obstacle when it comes to this multilateral exercise. Thank you.

Chair: Thank you. I propose that we break now and reconvene at 6.30 to allow our Muslim brothers and sisters to break their fast. Our meeting is adjourned.

****

Chair: I would now invite the Commission to take action on L5rev2. I call on the Secretary to introduce resolution L5rev2.

Secretary: This is indeed the fifth and last proposal before us, the unedited revised version of L5rev2 with the title “Preventing and responding to drug overdose through prevention, treatment, care and recovery measures, as well as other public health interventions to address the harm associated with illicit drug use as part of a balanced comprehensive scientific evidence based approach, in accordance with domestic law and circumstances”. It has been tabled by the United States, and also has sponsorship from Chile, Germany, UK, as well as Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Czechia, Denmark, France, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland and Portugal.

Chair: Can I invite the Commission to adopt the resolution by consensus?

USA: The US committed, from the beginning of informal negotiations, to an inclusive and transparent negotiation process, and I hope we have lived up to that commitment. We believe the text before us represents the considered position of the Commission and indeed all member states. Chair, the United States therefore moves to close debate on the resolution L5rev2 unedited revised version, as transmitted by the Committee of the Whole to the plenary. We request that the Commission proceed, without further delay, to its adoption pursuant to Rule 50. Thank you.

Chair: The representative of the United States has moved, within the terms of Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedures of the Functional Commissions of ECOSOC – the closure of debate on resolution of L5rev2. Rule 50 reads as follows:

“A representative may at any time move the closure of the debate on the item under discussion, whether or not any other representative has signified his wish to speak. Permission to speak on the motion shall be accorded only to two representatives opposing the closure, after which the motion shall be put to the vote immediately.”

That would mean that if the motion is successful, the Commission would proceed immediately to consider any proposal before it on resolution L5rev2. Let me remind the Commission that, in accordance with Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedures of the Functional Commissions of ECOSOC, a simple majority of the Commission members present and voting is required. The Commission will now proceed to vote on the motion to close the debate on L5rev2. Are there any delegations that oppose the closure of the debate? I see none.

I now call on only the members of the Commission in favour of the motion to close the debate to raise their country sign and keep it raised until their country name is called out.

Secretary: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, France, Finland, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, UK, United States, Uruguay and Zimbabwe.

Chair: I now call on only members of the Commission not in favour of the motion to close the debate to raise their signs. I see none. I now request members of the Commission abstaining to raise their country signs. I see none.

There is a total of 45 votes in favour, zero votes against and zero abstentions. Therefore, I declare that the Commission has decided to close the debate. We now proceed [on the proposed resolution]. Since we’ve had no votes objecting to the motion and no abstentions, I would want to ask if we could adopt the resolution L5rev2 by consensus.

Russia: Honestly, I never thought that at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs I would be compelled to make a statement on voting procedure, but circumstances compel me to do so now. In a nutshell, the reason for this is that this resolution, which in many respects is not a bad one, there is one provision that we totally disagree with. The sponsors of the resolution refused to delete this concept from the resolution, and therefore it is necessary to vote on it. But when it comes to our reasons for voting this way, we will give our explanation after the vote.

Chair: We will now proceed with the voting on L5rev2. I will propose that any statements made by members of the Commission in explanation of their vote, as well as any general statements, will be made after voting. In accordance with Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure of the Functional Commissions of ECOSOC…  US, do you want to take the floor with a point of order?

USA: I am so sorry Mr. Chair, we have a question – did the Ambassador of the Russian Federation call for a vote. If he did not, can we proceed to adopt the resolution by consensus?

Russia: Of course, I did request a vote in accordance with Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure.

Chair: Thank you. In accordance with Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure of the Functional Commissions of ECOSOC, no representative may interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual process of voting. In accordance with Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedures of the Functional Commissions of ECOSOC, a simple majority of the Commission members present and voting is required.

I now call on only members of the Commission in favour of the adoption of the proposal contained in L5rev2 [the resolution on overdose] to raise their country signs and keep them raised until their country name is called out.

Secretary: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Finland, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherland, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, UK, United States and Uruguay.

Chair: Only members of the Commission not in favour of the proposal may raise their country sign at this point.

Secretary: China, Russia.

Chair: I request only members of the Commission abstaining to indicate their abstention by raising their country sign.

Secretary: Algeria, Armenia, Bangladesh, Dominican Republic, Iran, Zimbabwe.

Chair: There is a total of 38 votes in favour, two votes against, and six abstentions. Therefore, I declare the Commission has decided to adopt L5rev2.

[Absent: —7 (out of 53) Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Nigeria, Qatar, Tanzania, Tunisia.]

Chair: There is a total of 38 votes in favour, 2 votes against, and six abstentions. Therefore I declare the commission has decided to adopt L5 rev 2.

United States:  First allow me to thank you and the distinguished Slovenian ambassador for guiding our deliberations in such an expert and successful manner to allow us to reach a decision to adopt our resolution and other resolutions today.  We’d also like to extend our thanks to the secretariat. We are grateful for all of those countries which have co sponsored our resolutions and those who we worked with. A special thanks even to those countries who could not support our resolution in the end. We appreciate the frank discussion of ideas which we believe led to a better resolution. We regret that this resolution was brought to a vote. We meant to strengthen the response to the overdose crisis. To all about a few countries in this room, OD response includes primary prevention, evidence-based treatment and harm reduction. This is an overdose prevention and response resolution focused on driving international responses to save lives and today we have moved this effort forward. The United States remains committed to the spirit of Vienna, working intensively over the past several months and throughout the week to address concerns of all delegations, particularly on the topic of harm reduction.  We have listened to the concerns of many about the inclusion of this term and have helped bring the nine uses of the term to one and we have also included many caveats and taken every opportunity to reinforce that this resolution does not impose our view on any member states or compel them to take actions that does not line up with their rules. We regret that we have not been able to do this through consensus but we see that the results of the vote show that just a few countries are using this as an opportunity to hold the CND hostage,  putting their domestic interests above the collective goals of this commission. I thank you Mr. Chair.  

Russia: In this room we just heard a round of applause and I would have gladly joined it but the circumstances we are in did not allow me to do so. The resolution is not a bad one, its core elements and its core topic are very important, that is fighting overdose. But the way in which this resolution was adopted you can hardly call this an achievement of CND.This is a major step backwards. This vote is a dire situation to be in which can hardly be a cause of applause. It will be more appropriate to lament this. Colleagues you are all aware that Russia has always attributed special importance to preserving the Vienna spirit and consensus decision making including at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs.  We are always willing to seek reasonable compromises to reach consensus. Our colleagues will recall that two years ago we prepared a draft resolution on combating drug crime committed using ICT it became evident that  number of countries were not willing to support this resolution for political reasons even though it was a very good one and that led to a vote but as a responsible country we took a very difficult decision to withdraw the resolution and not submit it. This is a very good example which shows how carefully and  diligently we related to the work of commission. But in this case we had no solution except to vote against, we were compelled to do so essentially. Unlike us the sponsors of the raft resolution had the choice either to ensure the adoption of a strong consensus resolution on combating overdose or to include knowingly contentious language in the text and secure the adoption of the text at any cost even if that means via a vote. As we can see the US and the cosponsors have opted for the latter and this is very regrettable. To be honest we do have the impression that the cosponsors hoped that given the importance of the topic of the resolution nobody would take it upon themselves to object and the text would thus be adopted without any problems but this kind of method of work is absolutely unacceptable. It is done in bad faith and is not in compliance with the renowned traditions of the CND. That is a fact. Now allow me to give an explanation of vote and multilateral diplomacy including where drug control is concerned it is exceptionally important to correctly form objectives. CND, as a matter of fact, has taken up this issue on several occasions and we have one objective which has been unanimously voted on by consensus which is to build a society free of drugs. In furtherance of this goal all possible practical steps and measures must be taken but if we reject our noble goals and if we instead set short term goals then the effectiveness of our work will wane. That is for sure. Regrettably several countries at the national level have substantially lowered the bar disastrously so compared to what we had previously agreed upon. The stated aim of these countries is merely harm reduction. I apologise for being so frank but the sponsors of this concept have de facto raised a white flag in the war on drugs. The concept of harm reduction as an objective and political aim means accepting consumption as the norm. Apparently all is needed is to see to it that  little less harm be done. I’d like to restate that we totally disagree with this. The task of the international community is not to reduce harm but rather to prevent harm and reducing or lowering the bar here is completely unacceptable. Indeed the UN drug control conventions give each state latitude in developing those forms and methods of drug control which according to the state authorities best serve national interests. Nonetheless it is inadmissible for questionable practices applied at a national level to be imposed on the entire international community. The resolution under discussion is in itself an attempt to impose disputed practices of some countries on the CND. Indeed, as I said, the objective of fighting overdose is a noble one. I’ve already said this before, but this is not the way we do this. The sponsors did somehow find a way of including in the zero draft nine references to the notion of harm reduction, nine. Then i believe yesterday there were only four left and today there is now one reference to harm reduction and this begs a question: what stood in the way of if the sponsors care so much about consensus in the vienna spiriti and drug control and overdose then what stood in the way what stopped them from removing the final reference to this contentious concept of harm reduction? What stopped them from doing that if it would have allowed us to adopt the resolution by consensus? I am getting the idea that from the very beginning the draft resolutions have never set the goal to draft it by consensus. They may have created the facade of wanting to do so but they knew they would put it to vote and that is dreadful for the commission. Colleagues, what is this? Clearly the proponents of harm reduction are aware of all the deficiencies in their conceptual framework. They seek to prop up their own approach by a decision of the CND> that is the very purpose of the exercise we are in. nonetheless such practices have not received the blessing they would have received through a consensus approach to this. (…)

Switzerland: Switzerland would like to thank the US delegation for its very hard work and adoption of this fundamental resolution which aims at prevention and rehabilitation following overdoses. People are dying of overdoses, which is why this document is so important. This is why Switzerland is pleased that it will be able to use this resolution. Switzerland is very well aware of the difficulties that the term harm reduction has posed to certain delegations. Our delegation has worked hard to find solutions to respond to concerns of all of our colleagues for all their hard work and over the 67th CND..  The adoption of this iresoltion is the result of a group effort that we should all be proud of.

European Union:  The EU and its member states regret the 67th session of the CND was not able to adopt all draft resolutions by consensiuse  the EU and its member states have always valued the Veinna spirit and the principle onsensus we have always stood for them, and totally work to defend them. However, as we have stated in the past, consensus cannot mean a veto right for every member state. The Vienna spirit is an expression of the willingness and dedication of all concerned parties to pull together to find joint solutions, even on the most difficult topics. it requires good faith, willingness to listen to each other and a certain flexibility. This has always been the approach of the European Union and its member states The adoption of resolutions by vote is not cosomethign we see favouraably.  

UNODC : Congratulations on reaching the end of this milestone session  and on completing this important midterm review of international drug commitments.  You had a busy week filled with gruelling discussions often stretched into the night.  You engaged in over 27 Informal consultations and eight sessions of the Committee of the Whole and negotiated over 200 hours on the outcome document. It has been a long journey. Indeed, since the 2019 ministerial declaration was adopted. And five years later. This high level segment has proven that this end remains the main convening body to discuss drug related matters. This year, the Commission brought together a record breaking 2500 participants and it says me with great pride and gratitude to see so many faces with energy, passion and enthusiasm. We had 293 statements in the general debate, including from 120 member states, from more than 30 ministerial level representatives.We were honoured to welcome the President of the General Assembly, showing engagement at the highest level of the UN to addressing the world drug problem. We held over 170 side events, another record number for this commission, and 33 exhibitions. I was privileged to attend many of these events, where I spoke on priority topics such as alternative development, synthetic drugs, the need to close the Global Health divide and more. These engagements reconfirm the importance of our work and of multilateralism, not just here in Vienna, but also in the field where we have the greatest impact and where we are needed most. We also have 35 determined young children from 27 countries deliver an important statement calling for a healthier and brighter future. We have high level representatives from York City, We continue our constructive engagement with civil society with over 600 representatives from more than 140 NGOs bringing diverse and vital perspectives.   And I always appreciate the opportunity to engage in this positive dialogue with civil society organisations from across the spectrum, which enriches our work.  This incredible high level turnout underscores the importance and relevance of the issue that we are here to discuss. And I use this opportunity to thank our dedicated language professionals who work tirelessly and with professionalism to interpret over 80 hours of meetings and edited and translated over 245 pages of documents in all six official UN languages. Let’s give them a lot of space.   Excellencies this has indeed been a challenging week, marked by lengthy and often difficult discussions on complex issues. At times these discussions have resulted in Division including a vote on two of this year’s resolutions. Nevertheless, this high level session spoke to a fundamental truth of this commission that even in times of division and fractures we can find common ground and collective results. The outcome document that you adopted at the opening session embodies that result. I would like to echo a sentiment expressed by several member states this evening that we need to stay committed to the Vienna spirit. We need to continue to work towards maintaining   as is your determination to accelerate the implementation of international drug related concerns over the next five years for the health, safety and well being of all humanity.  It recognises too that Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 and effectively addressing the worldwide problem are complementary and mutually reinforcing aspirations. You have also adopted resolutions on important substantive matters, and I would like to commend you, Ambassador Johnson for leading this challenging session of the Commission and persistence.  I would also like to thank the Ambassador (…) of Slovenia for confidently guiding the Committee of the Whole And I would like to thank my team, the staff of the Secretariat for their tireless efforts over the past weeks and months to make this session a success. Thank you. We must not let all this hard work go to waste. The clock is now ticking as we look for the for the coming five years and the next review of international commitments in 2029. Ladies and gentleman this midterm review came at a critical moment for global challenges. I said in my opening remarks that this is very much a time for action. In this regard. I was delighted to see so much positive engagement with the chairs pledge for action initiative, and I commend the 66 countries that have made pledges today. I’m proud to announce that I will be adding my voice to yours, by making UNODC its own pledge for action.  Over the coming years UNODC pledges to support a paradigm shift towards much stronger drug prevention frameworks with a focus on children and adolescents as well as those who are in settings of vulnerability. We will strive to provide tools to promote best practices and encourage far greater investment in prevention at the national and international levels. And as we close the 67 session I add the 67 pledge made sense.  UNODC pledges to continue its high quality support for this end as the world’s principal policy making body on drug related issues.  Thank you and I wish you all a very safe journey. 

Chair: 67 is a number I love. My country is 67 years old. Before I close this session I would like to note that you have made history, a history of procedure. Not a history that I want, not a history that should culminate our hard work, and not a history that I’m proud of. In spite of this, I think that we can still deplore our utmost efforts to keep the VIenna spirit when considering issues within the remit of our common and shared responsibility. Voting on issues of this nature undoubtedly undermines our collective enterprise and therefore I urge deep reflection on this matter by all of us. Nonetheless I would like to thank you all for having contributed to the biggest gathering of the CND ever. I hear that there were 140 members of the member states represented here. And 141 non-governmental organisations. We reached more than 2000 participants. How lovely would it have been if we had reached consensus on all the resolutions and we had kept the long tested tradition of the CND. Your support has been instrumental in reaching agreement and I appreciate your efforts. Special thanks to the chair of the CoW for having supported the CoW. Our meeting is closed.

[Long applause]

Does any member of the Commission wish to make a statement at this time?

USA: Thank you Chair. First allow me to thank you and the distinguished Slovenian Ambassador for guiding our deliberations in such an expert and successful manner to allow us to reach a decision to adopt our resolution and other resolutions today. We would also like to extend our thanks to the Secretariat for its diligent work that facilitated our deliberations. And we are grateful for all of those countries which have co-sponsored our resolution and all of those with whom we worked during the negotiations – both formal and informal. And a special thanks even to those countries who in the end could not support our resolution. We appreciate the frank and open exchange of ideas that we think led us to a better resolution.

We regret that this resolution has resulted in a vote today. The United States tabled this resolution to raise awareness of and strengthen global responses to the overdose crisis facing many countries including the United States. To all about a few countries in this room, overdose prevention and response includes primary prevention, evidence-based treatment, harm reduction and recovery support. This is an overdose prevention and response resolution focused on driving international responses to save lives, and today we have moved this effort forward. The United States remains committed to the spirit of Vienna, working intensively over the past several months and throughout the week to address concerns of all delegations, particularly on the topic of harm reduction. We have listened to the small number of delegations voicing reservations about the inclusion of this term, and have worked in good faith to reduce the number of references from nine in the zero draft, to four in the first revision, to one in the final version proposed in the CoW. We have inserted no less than seven caveats to make delegations feel conformable with the term, which has been widely used by the INCB, UNODC and WHO for decades. We have taken every opportunity to reinforce that this resolution does not impose our view on other member states, or compel member states to take any action not in line with their domestic legal frameworks.

We regret that this minority of states has pushed the spirit of Vienna to the brink, but we believe the vote count for this measure demonstrates that a small number of states are utilising our consensus-based decision making process to hold the CND hostage, putting their domestic interests above the collective goals of this Commission. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Russia: In this room we just heard a round of applause, and I would have gladly joined it. But the circumstances we are in did not allow me to do so. The resolution is not a bad one, its core elements and its core topic are very important, that is fighting overdose. But the way in which this resolution was adopted, the way it was submitted, you can hardly call this an achievement of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. This is a major step backwards. This vote is a dire situation to be in, which can hardly be a cause of applause. It will be more appropriate to lament this.

Colleagues, you are all aware that Russia has always attributed special importance to preserving the Vienna spirit and consensus decision making, including at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. We are always willing to seek reasonable compromises with a view to reaching consensus. Our colleagues will recall that two years ago we prepared a draft resolution on combating drug crime committed using ICT. It became evident that a number of countries were not willing to support this resolution for political reasons, even though the resolution was a very good one, and that this [could have] led to a vote. But as a responsible country which takes a responsible approach to the CND, we took a very difficult decision to withdraw the resolution and to not submit it. This is a very good example which shows how carefully and diligently we relate to the work of Commission.

But, in this case, we were left with no option but to vote against. We were essentially compelled to do so. Unlike us, the sponsors of the draft resolution had the choice either to ensure the adoption of a strong consensus resolution on combating overdose, or to include knowingly contentious language in the text and secure the adoption of the text at any cost even if that means via a vote. As we can see, the United States and the co-sponsors have opted for the latter, and this is very regrettable. To be honest, we do have the impression that the co-sponsors hoped that, given the importance of the topic of the resolution, nobody would take it upon themselves to object and that the text would thus be adopted without any problems. But this kind of method of work is absolutely unacceptable. It is done in bad faith and is not in compliance with the renowned traditions within the CND. That is a fact.

Now allow me to give an explanation of vote. In multilateral diplomacy, including where drug control is concerned, it is exceptionally important to correctly and accurately formulate objectives. CND, as a matter of fact, has taken up this issue on several occasions, and we have one objective which has been unanimously approved by consensus – that is, building a society free of drugs. In furtherance of that noble and indeed very bold goal, all possible practical steps and measures must be taken. But if we reject our noble goals, and if we instead set short term goals, then indeed the effectiveness of our work will wane. That is for sure. Regrettably, several countries at the national level have substantially lowered the bar – disastrously so – compared to what we had previously agreed upon in the Commission. The stated aim of these countries is merely harm reduction. I apologise for being so frank, but the sponsors of this concept have de facto raised a white flag in the war on drugs. The concept of harm reduction as an objective and political aim means accepting drug consumption as the norm. Apparently, all that is needed is to see to it that a little less harm be done. I’d like to restate that we totally disagree with this. The task of the international community is not to reduce harm, but rather to prevent harm. Reducing or lowering the bar here is completely unacceptable. Indeed, the UN drug control conventions give each state latitude in developing those forms and methods of drug control which, according to the state authorities, best serve national interests. Nonetheless it is inadmissible for questionable concepts and practices applied at a national level to be imposed – I re-state, to be imposed – on the entire international community.

The resolution under discussion is in itself an attempt to impose disputed practices of some countries on the CND. Indeed, as I said, the objective of fighting overdose is a noble one. I’ve already said this before, but this is not the way we do this. The sponsors did somehow find a way of including in the zero draft nine references to the notion of harm reduction, nine! Then I believe yesterday there were only four left, and today there is now one reference to harm reduction. This begs a question: what stood in the way of – if the sponsors care so much about consensus and the Vienna spirit and drug control and fighting overdose – then what stood in the way, what stopped them from removing the final reference to this contentious concept of harm reduction? What stopped them from doing that? If they had, it would have allowed us to adopt the resolution by consensus. I am getting the stark impression that, from the very beginning, the draft resolutions had never set the goal to adopt the resolution by consensus. They might have created the appearance of wanting to do so, but instead they knew they would put it to vote. And that is what happened and that is dreadful for the Commission. Applauding what happened is not possible – colleagues, what is this?

Clearly the proponents of harm reduction are aware of all the deficiencies in their conceptual framework. They seek to prop up their own approach by means of a decision of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. That is the very purpose of this exercise we are in. Nonetheless, such practices have not received the blessing they would have received through consensus adoption of the resolution. The provisions of this resolution pertaining to so-called harm reduction are, for us, politically and legally null and void. We would like to hope that future work on important CND resolutions will be structured in line with the normal, long-standing methods and norms of multilateral diplomacy – norms and methods which have proven to be effective at the Vienna international platform. These traditions need to be protected. They should not be subjected to this strength test, which we have seen in respect of resolution L5. Thank you.

Singapore: Thank you, Mr Chair, for giving us the opportunity to explain our vote. Singapore voted in favour of this resolution. My delegation thanks the United States for tabling this resolution. We strongly support the resolution’s intent, which is also the reason why we support the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Trends. Singapore is a strong and consistent advocate of international cooperation to counter the world drug problem. We attach great importance to the CND as the primary global drug policy making body and to preserving the spirit of collaboration, consensus and willingness to find common ground that has characterized and underpinned our work. Throughout the course of the negotiations, my delegation has made a number of proposals to try to bridge the gaps, to find common ground and try to achieve consensus for this resolution. However, we regret that these proposals were not given sufficient consideration. We therefore deeply regret that the long-standing Vienna spirit of consensus and cooperation has been ruptured over the issue of harm reduction.

Singapore is a firm advocate of harm prevention. We have not given up the on the fight against drugs. Prevention is a cornerstone of our strategy and also the global drug strategy, and we strongly believe that it must be prioritized. There is a wealth of undisputed evidence underpinning the effectiveness of prevention. But we do acknowledge that harm reduction, despite lacking an inter-governmentally agreed definition, has its merits and it’s important to some countries in tackling their domestic drug problem. Nevertheless, we strongly believe the countries that adopt harm reduction measures should also consider having recovery and abstinence as the end goal. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to resolving the world drug problem. All countries have the right to decide and implement policies that are best suited for their context. There are many countries which have implemented harm reduction strategies, but there are also many countries that have not. Despite breaking of the Vienna spirit of consensus, we do strongly urge member states to redouble efforts to continue working together to counter and tackle the world drug problem in good faith and in a constructive manner. Thank you, Chair.

China: As a member of the Commission, China has always taken a positive and constructive attitude and upheld the Vienna spirit of consensus. We regret to see that this resolution has set a precedent for voting. China opposes the inclusion of harm reduction in the CND resolution. We have fully expressed our positions during the consultations of the CoW over the past few years, and we have shown maximum flexibility. China regrets that this resolution was adopted by a vote. China calls on all parties to abide by the UN drug conventions and adopt a comprehensive and balanced approach to addressing the global drug issue.

China has no objection to interventions to reduce the harm associated with drug abuse, such as needle exchange and methadone maintenance treatment, which have long been carried out in China. However, we note with concern that in some countries the so-called harm reduction intervention includes practices suspected of condoning or even legalizing drug abuse – such as legitimate drug consumption rooms. This is contrary to the UN conventions. In particular, it should be pointed out that, for a long time, there is no consensus by the international community on the concept and definition of harm reduction. Neither have they been clarified through a wider and more professional consultation with scientific evidence. In this case, we do not believe that it is appropriate to write this expression in a CND resolution. We would like to request the meeting to record our comments [in the report]. Thank you.

Canada: Canada would like first to offer thanks to the United States for tabling this resolution on such an important topic. The resolution is a solid text that shines a light on the grave problem of overdoses, and offers ways forward to reduce them. Overdose prevention, reversal treatment, care and recovery are extremely important components to international drug policy. This is a question of the health and safety of humankind. It is a question of life or death. We genuinely regret that this has gone to a vote, especially given how strong the scientific evidence is in supporting the effectiveness of harm reduction measures, both in terms of preventing overdose deaths and reducing other harms such as the transmission of bloodborne viruses. Simply put, harm reduction saves lives. Make no mistake, Canada believes that supply and demand reduction measures are critically important. But they are clearly not enough. We’ve engaged in exhaustive negotiations and we offer thanks to those delegations who listened to the views of others, proposed ideas, sought compromises and negotiated in good faith. Canada looks forward to the implementation of this important resolution. As a committed member of the CND, Canada also stands ready to work constructively with all the delegations in this room in getting the CND back to the path of consensus.

UK: I’d like to keep this brief because we all want to go home on a Friday night. On behalf of the United Kingdom, we want to express our congratulations to the United States. I’d like to thank the Chair for all of his efforts to work towards consensus in a transparent and inclusive approach, working hard to get us a strong and clear text, including late at night. We were proud to be the first co-sponsor of this resolution, recognizing its importance on this vital issue. And for this reason we were pleased to vote in favour, noting the importance of this resolution not only to the sponsors but to the wider CND. I’d also like to thank you, Mr. President, and the Chair of the CoW, for all of your efforts since January in everything that you have done. Thank you.

Iran: While Iran is a pioneer country in the implementation of harm reduction and treatment of overdose in the region, and considering the sense of cooperation which has been made by our delegation, sadly the main sponsor of the resolution has not accommodated most of the concerns and considerations which have been made and submitted by the Iran delegation during the course of negotiations. In this way, my delegation considering the need to promote international cooperation for implementation of the CND mission, has tried to insert relevant concepts which have been ignored and neglected by the sponsor. This made our delegation to abstain on this resolution. We hope that CND will not experience this procedure again and will not be impacted by the political atmosphere anymore. Thank you.

Switzerland: Switzerland would first of all like to thank the US delegation for its very hard work, and congratulate it on the adoption of this fundamental resolution which aims at prevention, treatment and rehabilitation following overdoses. While I speak, people are dying of overdoses, which is why this document is so important. This is why Switzerland is pleased that it will be able to use this resolution. Switzerland is very well aware of the difficulties that the term harm reduction has posed to certain delegations. Our delegation has worked hard to find solutions to respond to concerns of all of our colleagues. As we have said many times, a record number of caveats have been introduced into this resolution, and Switzerland has agreed to reduce the number of mentions of [harm reduction] to respond to the concerns of delegations. We would like to thank all colleagues for their hard work and commitment over this 67th CND. The adoption of this resolution is the result of a group effort that we should all be proud of. Thank you.

European Union:  I wish to make a general statement, not an explanation of vote. The European Union and its member states regret that the 67th session of the CND was not able to adopt all draft resolutions by consensus. The European Union and its member states have always valued the Vienna spirit and the principle of consensus. We have always stood for them, and tirelessly worked to defend them. However, as we have stated in the past, consensus cannot mean a veto right for every member state. The Vienna spirit is an expression of the willingness and dedication of all concerned parties to pull together to find joint solutions, even on the most difficult topics. It requires good faith, willingness to listen to each other, and a certain flexibility. This has always been the approach of the European Union and its member states.

The adoption of resolutions by vote is not something we see favourably. But let’s all take this development as an opportunity to learn some lessons, and as an occasion to revitalise the Vienna spirit and go back to its true, genuine meaning. Let us come back next year, but also next month at the CCPCJ, with renewed commitment towards consensus, mutual understanding and respect for the original spirit that guided us so well in the past decades. Let me also take this opportunity to thank and congratulate you, Mr Chair, on your exemplary Chairmanship of the 67th session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. You deserve the deep gratitude and appreciation of the entire CND, and I’m happy to convey that of the European Union to you. I would also like to congratulate Ambassador Barbara Zvokelj of Slovenia for her diligent and expert Chairmanship of the Committee of the Whole, as well as the entire CND Bureau for their successful work. Let me also congratulate all those who presented resolutions for the successful adoption of these resolutions. And finally let me congratulate the Secretariat and UNODC for their work which has made all of today’s results possible. Warm thanks from the European Union.

Russia: We had an excellent opportunity to adopt a robust consensus resolution on an exceptionally important matter – that is, combating overdoses. This chance has been wasted. And this is really quite painful. Just look at the situation. On the one side, we had the Vienna spirit, the rules of consensus, a strong collective signal, a unanimous signal on the part of the Commission on the issue of overdoses. And on the other side of the scale, we had one reference to harm reduction in the operative paragraph 3 of the resolution. The co-sponsors unfortunately did not opt for the Vienna spirit of consensus, for a robust collective signal on the part of the Commission. But they voted. They opted in favour of preserving these two words, these two dubious words, these two contentious words. They just wanted to keep them in the resolution. It’s really quite sad to see what we’ve ended up with. In the current political conjuncture, it might not be so typical to say this, but I would say that I would be willing to back what was said by the EU representative in the final part of his statement when, on behalf of the 27 countries of the EU, he reaffirmed, and this is very important, he reaffirmed the importance of the Vienna spirit, the importance of consensus, and he also pinned his hopes on ensuring that, next year, the mistakes made this year will not be seen over again. Thank you.

Chair: Are there any other delegations that would like to co-sponsor the resolution?

Secretary: Belgium on behalf the EU, Brazil, Netherlands, Morocco, Albania, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Japan, Argentina, and Antigua and Barbuda.

Char: We have now approved the report as contained in L.1 and addendum 1 to 7. I now invite the Commission to adopt the report as a whole. I see no objection. It is so decided. I have the pleasure to invite the Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Ms Ghada Waly, to address the Commission with some closing remarks.

UNODC (Ghada Waly): Congratulations on reaching the end of this milestone session of the CND, and on completing this important midterm review of international drug commitments. You’ve had a busy week filled with gruelling discussions that often stretched late into the night. You engaged in over 27 informal consultations and eight sessions of the Committee of the Whole, and negotiated over 200 hours on the outcome document. It has been a long journey, indeed, since the 2019 Ministerial Declaration was adopted. And five years later, this high-level segment has proven that the CND remains the main convening body to discuss drug related matters. This year, the Commission brought together a record breaking 2,500 participants and it fills me with great pride and gratitude to see so many faces filling these conference rooms with energy, passion and enthusiasm. We had 293 statements in the General Debate, including from 120 member states, more than 30 ministerial level representatives and a deputy head of state. We were honoured to welcome the President of the General Assembly, showing engagement at the highest level of the UN to addressing the world drug problem. We held over 170 side events, another record number for this Commission, and 33 exhibitions. I was privileged to attend many of these events, where I spoke on priority topics such as alternative development, synthetic drugs, the need to close the global health divide, and more. These engagements reconfirm the importance of our work and of multilateralism, not just here in Vienna, but also in the field where we have the greatest impact and where we are needed most.

We also have 35 determined young change makers from 27 countries deliver an important statement calling for a healthier and brighter future. We had high level representatives from UN system partners and the scientific community. We continued our constructive engagement with civil society with over 600 representatives from more than 140 NGOs bringing diverse and vital perspectives. And I always appreciate the opportunity to engage in this positive dialogue with civil society organisations from across the spectrum, which enriches our work.

This incredible high level turnout underscores the importance and relevance of the issue that we are here to discuss. And I use this opportunity to thank our dedicated language professionals who work tirelessly and with upmost professionalism to interpret over 80 hours of meetings and edited and translated over 245 pages of documents in all six official UN languages. Let’s give them a round of applause please.

Excellencies, this has indeed been a challenging week, marked by lengthy and often difficult discussions on complex issues. At times these discussions have resulted in division, including a vote on two of this year’s resolutions. Nevertheless, this high level session spoke to a fundamental truth of this Commission – that even in times of division and fractures we can find common ground and collective resolve. The outcome document that you adopted at the opening session embodies that resolve. And I would like to echo a sentiment expressed by several member states this evening, that we need to stay committed to the Vienna spirit. We need to continue to work towards maintaining the Vienna spirit.

The outcome document symbolises your determination to accelerate the implementation of international drug related commitments over the next five years for the health, safety and wellbeing of all humanity. It recognises too that achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, and effectively addressing the world drug problem, are complementary and mutually reinforcing aspirations. You have also adopted four resolutions on important substantive matters, and I would like to commend you, Ambassador Johnson, for leading this challenging session of the Commission with poise, passion, patience and persistence. I would also like to thank Ambassador Barbara Zvokelj of Slovenia for confidently guiding the Committee of the Whole. And I would like to thank my team, the staff of the Secretariat, for their tireless efforts over the past weeks and months to make this session a success. Thank you.

We must not let all this hard work go to waste. The clock is now ticking as we look forward for the coming five years and the next review of international commitments in 2029. Ladies and gentleman, this midterm review came at a critical moment for global drug challenges. I said in my opening remarks that this is very much a time for action. In this regard, I was delighted to see so much positive engagement with the Chair’s ‘Pledge4Action’ initiative, and I commend the 66 countries that have made pledges.

Today, I’m proud to announce that I will be adding my voice to yours, by making UNODC its own pledge for action. Over the coming years UNODC pledges to support a paradigm shift towards much stronger drug prevention frameworks with a focus on children and adolescents, as well as those who are in settings of vulnerability. We will strive to provide tools, promote best practices and encourage far greater investment in prevention at the national and international levels. And as we close the 67th session, I add the 67th pledge made at this session. UNODC pledges to continue its high quality support for the CND as the world’s principal policy making body on drug related issues. Thank you and I wish you all a very safe journey home.

Chair: 67 is a number I love. My country [Ghana] is 67 years old. And we have the 67th pledge from the UNODC. But having said that, I won’t allow you to leave this place happy – I want you to have a sour taste in your mouth. Before I close this session I would like to note that you have made history, a history of procedure. Not a history that I want, not a history that should culminate our hard work, and certainly a history that I’m not proud of. In spite of this, I think that we can still deploy utmost efforts to keep the Vienna spirit when considering issues within the remit of our common and shared responsibility. Voting on issues of this nature undoubtedly undermines our collective enterprise, and therefore I urge deep reflection on this matter by all of us. Nonetheless I would like to thank you all for having contributed to the biggest gathering of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs ever. I hear that there were 140 member states of the United Nations represented here, as well as representatives of 18 intergovernmental organisations, and 141 non-governmental organisations. We reached in total more than 2,500 participants. How lovely would it have been if we had reached consensus on all the resolutions and we had kept the long tested tradition of the CND. I would also like to express my personal appreciation for the assistance of the Extended Bureau and the Bureau in the preparation of the 67th session of the Commission. I would also use this opportunity like to thank all the moderators of informals towards the outcome document, your support has been instrumental in reaching agreement and I deeply appreciate your efforts. Special recognition goes to the Ambassador Barbara Zvokelj for having supported me by chairing the CoW. I also want to thank the Ambassador Malta for helping me to chair the plenary. I think I speak for all delegations when I express my appreciation to all Secretariat staff that have contributed to, and facilitated, our work by preparing the documentation and drafting the report of the session, as well as for providing advice and support to all delegations at various stages of our deliberations. Finally, let me wish all of you returning home a safe trip, and let us come back making the Vienna spirit strong. Our meeting is closed.